Well, just vote! If Democratic Latino leaders can’t get Latinos to the polls this year with Donald Trump and the rejection of DAPA stewing in the Latino community, you have to wonder if we will ever vote. This is the best ammo Latino Dems have had ever to get Latinos to the polls.
Locally, this should be the year Latinos show up to vote and be the difference in November. Check the following:
I’m sensing a lot of sadness and frustration in the Hispanic community. This will become a major issue for the 2016 election.
Activist Cristina Jimenez, director of United We Dream: “Attacks on our community are nothing new. We need to rise up not only to protect DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents] and DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals], but to end deportations. We are outraged that conservative Justices on the Supreme Court would allow a continued delay initiated by hateful Republican politicians and judges who have played with the lives of 5 million undocumented people who qualify for relief….We’re calling on registered voters to take to the polls in November and vote for candidates who will support DAPA and DACA while this case is ongoing, because a new president could either protect and build on these programs, or take them away completely.”
Maria Teresa Kumar, president and CEO of Voto Latino: “Time and time again, Latinos and immigrants have showed resilience as a community, and now more than ever, it is important that we continue to show our resilience and power at the ballot box. These executive actions were deeply rooted in the same values that all Americans hold true – family and unity. Though today’s outcome does not mirror these values, we know that the future of immigration reform will no longer be decided by politics or by the courts. Instead, it will be decided by the more than 1.6 million Latino voters directly impacted by today’s decision.”
Let’s see if the Dems can take full advantage in an environment that clearly works in their favor.
Jose Altuve is sitting at 12 dingers for the year. How many did he have last season?
Over at the City of H-Town, the city campaign contribution rules may be changed a bit. Yesterday, a City Council committee looked at proposed changes being offered up by the administration.
Here is how the Chron’s Rebecca Elliott is characterizing the proposed changes:
Incumbents and wealthy candidates would get boost under proposed changes to Houston’s campaign finance law: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/City-may-double-contribution-limits-to-go-with-8322130.php?t=4627f5d4f1438d9cbb&cmpid=twitter-premium …
Here is from the Rebecca’s article:
The looser regulations would allow candidates to raise twice as much from individuals and political action committees ahead of the general election, by splitting the four-year term into two two-year contribution cycles. That means that rather than collecting a maximum of $5,000 from individuals and $10,000 from political action committees per election, office seekers would be able to raise that amount during the first two years of their term, and then do so again during the second two years. The cycle would reset again if a candidate were forced into a runoff.
Mayor Sylvester Turner framed the proposed changes as an effort to maintain continuity with the city’s old two-year election cycle, though some viewed them as a way for incumbents to boost their financial advantage.
With the changes, Turner said, “any person can’t give any more in four years than they would have been able to give under two two-year terms.”
The proposed new rules – which would go into effect July 1 if approved by the council next week – also would permit council and controller candidates to reimburse themselves tens of thousands of dollars more for personal loans.
District council members like Greg Travis, who loaned his campaign $75,000 last year and advocated for the change, would be able to recoup $50,000 under the new rules, instead of $5,000. Controller and at-large council candidates would be able to recover $75,000, up from $15,000. The $75,000 personal reimbursement ceiling for mayoral candidates would remain the same.
Several conservative council members Thursday urged the city to abandon contribution limits altogether, as is done in statewide races.
“It seems to me it would be a lot simpler if we just went and we followed the state code,” Councilman Mike Knox said. “This is a very convoluted and complicated process we’re talking about here, and at the end of the day it is limiting free speech basically.”
Tracy Calabrese, senior assistant city attorney, said Houston’s contribution limits are intended to reduce corruption.
Councilman Dave Martin defended the contribution limits.
“The biggest criticism that I think people give us as a body is when they draw a correlation between a vote that we place to a contribution that we receive,” Martin said, adding that the limits help to “negate that a little bit.”
We have had limits on contributions since the 1990s and things have worked out A-OK. Commentary has been doing campaigns since the limits first went into effect and I have never really heard any complaints about them. In my opinion, we have a pretty good system and like all systems, they have to be altered on occasion. Limits are good.
Local fundraiser James Cardona criticized the changes as “incumbent protection”.
“It’s not a win for the city in elections,” Cardona said. “Now, you have incumbents getting double (maximum contributions) going into an election. … How’s the little guy going to fight that off?”
Oh, well. Of course, fundraisers who have current incumbents as clients probably would disagree.
Here is all of Rebecca’s article: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/City-may-double-contribution-limits-to-go-with-8322130.php.
Jose Altuve had 15 dingers last season of course.
We are in second place in the AL West and ten behind the Rangers. That’s OK for now. At least we are in the Wild Card hunt.